ArticleOsteoporosis and sarcopenia2024
Implications of the diagnosis of locomotive syndrome stage 3 for long-term care.
Article in Osteoporosis and sarcopenia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Locomotive syndrome stage 3 (LS3), which has been established recently, may imply a greater need for care than LS stage 0 (LS0), LS stage 1 (LS1), and LS stage 2 (LS2). The relationship between LS3 and long-term care in Japan is unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to examine this relationship. Methods: A total of 531 patients (314 women and 217 men; mean age, 75 years) who were not classified as requiring long-term care and underwent musculoskeletal examinations in 2012 were grouped according to their LS stage. Group L comprised patients with LS3 and Group N comprised those with LS0, LS1, and LS2. We compared these groups according to their epidemiology results and long-term care requirements from 2013 to 2018. Results: Fifty-nine patients (11.1%) were diagnosed with LS3. Group L comprised more patients (50.8%) who required long-term care than Group N (17.8%) (P < 0.001). Group L also comprised more patients with vertebral fractures and knee osteoarthritis than Group N (33.9% vs 19.5% [P = 0.011] and 78% vs 56.4% [P < 0.001], respectively). A Cox proportional hazards model and Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed a significant difference in the need for nursing care between Groups L and N (log-rank test, P < 0.001; hazard ratio, 2.236; 95% confidence interval, 1.451-3.447). Conclusions: Between 2012 and 2018, 50% of patients with LS3 required nursing care. Therefore, LS3 is a high-risk condition that necessitates interventions. Approaches to vertebral fractures and osteoarthritis of the knee could be key.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.